Re: Reopening RFC6874?

Jen Linkova <> Thu, 17 June 2021 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9053A30EA for <>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 15:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oo3vrQ8pd-Mh for <>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 15:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::729]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BB073A30E8 for <>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 15:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q190so3472852qkd.2 for <>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 15:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SOKlUtkQpFBL1P2+hnLz7kEsCsVkVzU97xSjgUi0fbw=; b=jOml3/5CTdMX+pcmNN66wiAS2ug3SEEVMOmfnPPHYY0WB1McB8pLOfpWGzLk570s6Y djfjJRkhOGMbIpozZ9SZg7W6+NHfy5R/ZkL+5/NgdbkJSybrBvzBweFwDlPL6Je/mpJn PE54Qq4MMJXb03AQyPpafw5YcS3FPEUDw3hWxyYfloRwQYufIfgKw2qImcmCDlCnkTrM 7K7uFhyf7lZUM5crhknupi+iIujE+iWwKFD5NABd9peUyilRzRyfrLpa5CYiYW22HLYx XqMiNYwEXNQ5tRKqF8WIjZYGKkcrbeK3a+Z0UqX7x9Oa9X1s8ZLojFE9P4uuWoLAPPre 5T9Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SOKlUtkQpFBL1P2+hnLz7kEsCsVkVzU97xSjgUi0fbw=; b=PhL++yhk4fG1xH4DD7it2sv+dTwx8Fmk3Zd7yY9OxXt1Su3nXlk1lQbLfMCLzl6hVx 3KkKqW9xWcywVjagC3cv5Qn1R+WfO1ntMsfy1KXibo0OFTBPKTkYTtgljPZt+QHRhxFR m51uvMCvNGEmZWsui7laFzYcsDlr7/yZaRJNGGdK7E59y1hPEYJaf1VM0xVTNjXNodrR DPr1nBAYU7eUX2gUYOezbhNk77hY+pwLu+qwmxmUGr1rFg7ayhxa4e3hFeCr6Z+POcQ1 6KZhgxhE0ys3QxzTzYcB356vS1SfG5SNFRfT6GILrF6Zn8e8zZ5q6TPCZYnpZ0Rvnjm7 qbsA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533gSz2pcsUDPj4OgfLBuPft6/m0RhVk9YnvKuVXOpyL9Q33cppp /h9Vj+eLSVqmHuj3+3sXGAJ8iX3omSJyN00cDuQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwL5v4ejFHWgnddWhHR0L8NG4OwKyTmcpgG8MEp4iXLdNMZ9VU8/rQHhfAmDGbxyb37lOXVepKoA/DWo9bMlIQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:485:: with SMTP id 127mr5974774qke.277.1623968432875; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 15:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Jen Linkova <>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 08:20:21 +1000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Reopening RFC6874?
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Cc: 6man <>, Stuart Cheshire <>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 22:20:40 -0000

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 9:59 AM Brian E Carpenter
<> wrote:
> It is probably necessary to re-open RFC6874 "Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform Resource Identifiers."
> Here's the problem. Web browsers do not correctly support Link Local literal addresses, because they cannot parse the zone identifier (aka the interface identifier).
> There are of course no "average user" use cases for this, but there are several technical use cases.


> Would the WG be interested in taking up this work? I think most of it
> would consist of using the "delete" key on RFC6874.

As someone who keeps seeing that issue on a regular basis (yeah, those
"technical use cases") I fully support any steps towards fixing the
Thanks for bringing it up, Brian!

SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry